Posts Tagged ‘mysandry’

We Americans are about to yet again have to hold our collective noses when we vote in the coming election.

One thing is clear, and that is that Obama must go. His attempts at undermining American sovereignty. His just plain lousy choices for advisers and people in high office such as Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder being the best examples. His idiotic handling of energy and economic issues, crony capitalism, and the list just goes on forever make his removal from office a no brainer. His inexcusable use of the military as an election tool just tops off the cake.

So, what are we left with? Yet another chorus of decidedly poor choices. Let’s take an observation them through the looking glass of the Bill of Rights.

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”[1]

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[2]

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”[3]

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.

[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate. Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at:

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]

Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

Clearly, neither candidate is a real friend of the Bill of Rights, and especially of the Second Amendment. Both are hell on taxes after all the whitewash has been removed. Both support the taking of fundamental rights away from people forever for less than felonious behaviors. Both believe in government running your personal day to day lives. Both are supporters of big government authoritarianism. Both are unacceptable, period…

Christmas, a day of thanks for our blessings. Irrespective of how one thinks in terms of religion, or faith. Gift giving and so on are but the shallow things involved. In Kantian Ethics we think in terms of final right, or wrong. Good, or evil, doing what is right, moral, and correct because that is what one should do. Not for reward, just because it is the correct thing to do. Even when no one else is watching.

But? Someone, or group always has to screw things up. Muslims stage an attack on innocent people in Nigeria. Some freak shoots up three generations of a family after opening presents, and I am sure that by later today there will be even more atrocities reported.

All of these things usually end up in some insane call for even further restrictions on the freedoms and liberties of the individual. Most often when those very freedoms may have prevented, or lessened the horrors released upon the victims.

More laws will be demanded by those that endure the pain of loss, as well as those with an anti freedom agenda. Any time that a law is passed it ultimately results in a loss of freedom in exchange for some perceived security. Ben Franklin summed that up for us all quite a few years ago. But? Does anyone listen these days to a dead old white man..?

Mark my words, there will be calls for extreme gun control laws in Texas as a result of the tragedy that happened just outside Dallas. But the control freaks will not say a word about what happened in Niger, where, at least legally, no one can own a weapon other than Police and Military, and, yes, you guessed it… Those with the right connections! Further, you can bet your bottom peso that the obama’s reported promise of assistance in fighting the terrorist’s will come with a price tag of some sort. Most probably involving more and liberty damaging policies, procedures, laws, or treaties…

I submit, yes, even after all these years here on WordPress, that individual freedom and liberty could have prevented or greatly lessened the degree of both the above noted tragedies. It is called a 45 Colt or 12 gauge Shotgun in the hands of a brave, willing and trained person. Yes, my Marine and Ranger Brothers will chastise me for saying that, but? Simply put, a rifle was not needed to put a stop to the nonsense!

Continuing the “Stuck on Stupid” agenda of those that detest freedom, liberty, and the Constitution Representative Carolyn McCarthy is back touting Chuck Schumer style treason against her oath. While that’s nothing new for the usual suspects we must always be vigilant, and stay on top of things. A lack of vigilance is what turned our system of law on it’s head when Lautenburg snuck in ex post facto law into the Domestic Violence law named after his pathetic pompous and politically correct mysandryic self.

A House bill that could drastically overhaul the nation’s gun control laws and strengthen federal power over states’ handling of individuals’ background checks is expected to be introduced today by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, The Daily Caller has learned.

McCarthy is expected to drop the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 — a near-identical companion to that of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer’s Senate bill — according to sources familiar with the legislation.

No kidding..? My, my, I never would have guessed that… Seems that the peoples mandate was in fact ignored by many that reside in hallowed offices in foggy bottom.

Just say what people want to hear, and go on about your merry ways.

Well folks, that, is specifically what the TEA Party is all about. Make it local, and in their faces, period. All this national TEA Party noise simply ignores why people joined together in this movement against higher taxes and ever expanding government. Government that intrudes on your life, right at home… Texas Fred does a great job exposing threats such as intrusion by government under color of law HERE.

Perhaps greeting politicians locally that are failing with a pot of tar and an opened down pillow will open their collective eyes..?

On to other things.

Seems that Emergency Rooms are still going the way of the passenger pigeon. Yet, the various stories that I have read, or watched on the news have been quite politically correct, and refuse to acknowledge one of the primary causes of closures nationwide. Use by illegal aliens, and others, of Emergency Departments for primary care; with no intent whatsoever of paying for the services rendered. It’s called fraud people, plain and simply put.

The Socialist scum head of the IMF get’s popped for alleged sexual assault. All fine and good; however as pointed out by Michael Savage on his show the other evening no proof is needed in this day and age for a woman to be able to destroy a man simply based upon her complaint of sexual or domestic battery. Sorry Michael, but you did not lead the charge. Do a search of “mysandry.” Better late than never though, and welcome aboard!

The middle east… What a mess to say the least. I’ve been calling for Dear Leader Gadhafi’s head to adorn a fence post for more years than I care to admit to. But just who will run the place after he has been ousted..? More Muslim Brotherhood types? Simply exchanging one despot for a group of despots is no solution. Same thing goes for Syria. While we are at it (examining ) the region. The U.N. will be voting on recognition of the Palestinian National State soon. Since epic fail obama, and his cronies are forever kissing the butts of Arabs / Muslims I suppose we can all guess what sort of support Israel will get from the U.S. on this issue of great importance. What’s yet another friend tossed under the bus..?

The Queen visits Ireland. Land of my forefathers never forget “Bloody Sunday.” But at the same time don’t allow Erie to whither because of old grievances.

The economy continues to falter, while the administration continues to tell us all how great things are becoming. This is a recording… (or so it seems!) If this lie can be pulled off, the epic fail obama is indeed assured a second term, and the destruction of America will be at hand.

As more and more comes out into the open it is clear that Martha Coakley is a true Big Government democrat. One can only hope that there are enough good Americans still left in Massachusetts to send her packing.

While Massachusetts is one of the bluest states in the country, Republican Scott Brown has come within striking distance of beating Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the state’s empty U.S. Senate seat. The special election will be held on Tuesday, Jan. 19, and in recent days Brown has gone from also-ran to serious contender. His meteoric rise demonstrates that the public has serious issues with Democrats, and particularly the health care bill.

Brown made a strong showing in a debate against Coakley in which he fielded considerably tougher questions than she did. While Coakley was asked questions about her campaign style and strategy, Brown was grilled about global warming and health care legislation. He held his own and offered a nice zinger when moderator David Gergen asked him if he would be willing to “sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat” and vote against the health care bill. Brown responded, “Well, with all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”

Absolutely true, but try telling that to Paul Kirk and the Massachusetts Democrat machine. Kirk was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick to hold the seat after Kennedy died, and he offers a crucial vote on health care should the vote come before the special election. Kirk has promised that he will vote for final passage, while Brown has indicated he will offer the 41st vote to prevent it. But now that it seems sure that the election will pass before the final vote, Kirk and the secretary of state’s office, which oversees the special election, may be prepared to stall final certification of the results if Brown wins. They claim they will have to wait a minimum of 10 days for absentee and military ballots. This standard certainly wasn’t in play when Kennedy himself was seated the day after the special election in 1962.

When it comes to Governors never back an attorney for the office. To be blunt, they kiss butt way too much. Wyoming Gun Owners points out the obvious with a very informative piece that outlines the threat to states rights, as well as the federal mandate based in mysandry and ex post facto law.

While Wyoming did go a long way toward correcting a fundamentally flawed law it did not go nearly far enough. Nor do I see any way that the law that was passed could, or would, be recognized by other states. Or that a person that had been convicted in another state could use Wyoming residency to have their rights restored in Wyoming. Read on, and I hope that Wyoming Gun Owners start allowing comments at some point. At least from dues paying members such as myself.

By Anthony Bouchard
The headline should read “Gun owners beware of formers U.S Attorneys”. But it’s best that you decide…

In 2004, The Sovereign State of Wyoming enacted legislation that established a procedure to expunge misdemeanor convictions “for the purposes of restoring any firearm rights lost”.

This was specifically to aid Wyoming citizens in restoring gun rights if they had a misdemeanor such as domestic violence on their record. The NRA backed Lautenberg legislation bans gun ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Wyoming legislators recognized there was nothing to protect individuals that were erroneously convicted.

Seems that Madame Speaker is concerned. Concerned about what? Losing her job perhaps? I seriously doubt that, but the Golden State of my birth has a notoriously fickle electorate. Even in the Bay Area at times. However, as I stated, I doubt it. What she probably does have valid fear about is quite simply what she, and those like her have done that could provoke some to resort to violence as a means of secession. Her astounding support of anti liberty legislation may only be topped by Frank Lautenberg, Chuck Schumer, and the late Ted Kennedy. I would speculate that the only reason for that would be her relative newness to Washington.

Nancy apparently wants to blame all these troubles on race and “astro turf.” Why not be honest Nancy? Why not point out your horrible record when it comes to sexism via legislated mysandry, your taxation policy votes, and yes, your rabid hate for the Bill of Rights? Then after you realize that you have been one of the most detrimental people ever to serve in office at any level we can give voice to all those that never had a chance to live because of you and your support for mass murdering profiteers…

Read on…

Pelosi worried about angry health care rhetoric

By LAURIE KELLMAN (AP) – 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama’s health care reform effort is concerning because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.

Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. “This kind of rhetoric was very frightening” and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.

Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted of the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and openly gay supervisor Harvey Milk. Gay rights activists and some others at the time saw a link between the assassinations and the violent debate over gay rights that had preceded them for years.

During a rambling confession, White was quoted as saying, “I saw the city as going kind of downhill.” His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill at the time. White committed suicide in 1985.

Pelosi is part of a generation of California Democrats on whom the assassinations had a searing effect. A resident of San Fransisco, Pelosi had been a Democratic activist for years and knew Milk and Moscone. At the time of their murders, she was serving as chairwoman of her party in the northern part of the state.

On Thursday, Pelosi was answering a question about whether the current vitriol concerned her. The questioner did not refer to the murders of Milk or Moscone, or the turmoil in San Francisco three decades ago. Pelosi referenced those events on her own and grew uncharacteristically emotional.

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco.

The public anger during health care town hall meetings in August spilled into the House last week when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama, the nation’s first black president, during his speech. On a largely party-line vote, the House reprimanded Wilson.

The soon to be anointed Justice Sotomeyor performed pretty much as I expected her to during the Senate conformation hearings. She doesn’t really frighten me so much as the next appointee sticks into a job for life. After all, replacing a sexist constitution hating member of the Supreme Court with another will not make all that much difference. The next one though? The impostor in chief just might get a Second Amendment ruling of the people kind… In any case Mike Rosen summed up the hearings pretty well. Read on;

Predictably, the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor were mostly for show.

The senators played their roles, just as Sotomayor played hers. Democrats sang her praises and lobbed her softballs. Republicans homed in on her controversial decisions, which she deftly parried with contradictory assertions, evasions, rationalizations, circumlocutions and lateral arabesques.

When pressed to explain how she might rule on future cases, she liberally invoked the “Ginsburg rule,” institutionalized in 1993 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to answer hypothetical questions during her confirmation hearing. (How do they get away with that? If you were interviewing someone for a job, wouldn’t you want to know how they’d deal with future contingencies?)

Alas, in politics, this is the way the game is played. Nominees hold their cards close to the vest. Candor takes a back seat to tap dancing, carefully crafted ambiguity, and declarations of motherhood and apple pie. Even Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts pulled their punches as nominees. The last Supreme Court candidate to say what he really believed — and eloquently, at that — was Robert Bork. He wasn’t confirmed.

As was expected, conservatives were unsatisfied with many of Sotomayor’s answers. But the mixed reviews on the left were more interesting. Pragmatists within the liberal establishment, rooting for Sotomayor, took her coy answers at face value and declared her to be respectably moderate. E.J. Dionne asserted that “she is the most conservative choice that PresidentObama could have made.” NPR’s oh-so-liberal judicial “reporter” Nina Totenberg hilariously opined on the “Charlie Rose” show that Sotomayor may be even more conservative on some issues than Justice Anthony Scalia!

Maureen Dowd lamented Sotomayor’s retreat from her earlier preening about the superiority of “a wise Latina woman” but explained why it was necessary. “As any clever job applicant knows,” admitted Dowd, “you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions — even though that’s why the president wants her.”

On the far left, political pragmatism gave way to doctrinaire ideological grandstanding. This was their moment to proudly proclaim their judicio-political creed. Dahlia Lithwick told MSNBC she was upset that Sotomayor and the Democrats “bought into [Chief Justice Roberts‘] notion that judges call balls and strikes” rather than ruling on their personal opinions.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives — and a socialist, one-world, Kumbaya utopian of the first order — urged Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to “make statements that explain why a liberal or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme Court.” If they had any backbone, Lerner said, they should declare: “We intend to vote for you, Judge Sotomayor. But we hope that you overcome this notion that you’ve been putting forward that your task on the Supreme Court is simply to enforce the law . . . we hopePresident Obama picked someone who was not just a passive ratifier of precedent, but a creative thinker who could look at the needs of American society today and help shape laws that fit these new realities.”

Lerner then rejected the “false notion that law is somehow impartial” and condemned the “rich white men” who made those laws and the “corporate power” they serve. Whew, what a mouthful!

Liberals needn’t worry. Sotomayor will be reliably “progressive,” if not the left-wing revolutionary Lerner hoped for. To believe otherwise, you’d have to imagine that theObama team got suckered by a closet conservative. No way. Only Republican presidents make mistakes like that. We’ll see soon enough when she takes her seat and starts casting votes and writing opinions. I’m betting Sotomayor will beRuth Bader Ginsburg with a Latino flavor.

For several years I have posted on various forums, and blogs about the domestic violence law, and the abuse of that law. We were first informed of just how evil all men are, and were by Patricia Schroeder from Colorado. Men were / are Al Bundy’s at best and at worst, well, what ever could be dreamed up.

Then, as always, there have to be Supermen! They had to please, and be praised no matter the cost of dignity and honor. The two most famous have to be Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer. Both men of power, and as ruthless in their search for praise and recognition as any gunfighter in a fiction movie about the “wild west.” Both men have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Lautenberg sneaked through a law that bans people from exercising rights that are defined as unalienable for less than felonious acts, and Schumer keeps blocking the funding so that rights could be restored. That’s bad enough, but the original act of treason, by Lautenberg, was to implement ex post facto law. For those that don’t know what that means, the short version is changing the rules after the game is played.

Here’s one example of how this has played out that I have personal knowledge of. Around 1957, at Von’s Market in Oceanside California, my stepfather and mother got into an argument. No hitting or anything, just some pretty loud yelling about whether they were going to buy Olympia beer, or Lucky Lager… A policeman happened to be in the store, and cited them both for disturbing the peace. Not really a big deal? Well, they both paid a ten dollar fine, and? Other than the Marine Corps dishing out a punitive tour at Adak, Alaska, all was well. Or so we thought…

Comes the year 2002, and mom wanted to go bird shooting with the grand-kids and some friends. She goes to the local store, and buys a shotgun, a regular old used Remington 870. But? The sale gets blocked. Based upon domestic violence (that wasn’t) from 1957! Years before the law was enacted! That friends, is how the domestic violence ban works. It is immoral, and goes beyond the Constitution all the way back to the Magna Carta, and The Rights of Englishmen. Remember those? Those little things that led to the “shot that was heard around the world?”

Now folks, I’m just a dumb old retired Paramedic but even I was able to see just how these laws were applied in a sexist manner. Not to mention in an un-Constitutional manner on a day to day basis. Now it seems that after all these years a few other folks have figured out what I have been talking my head off about for years.

$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

By Carey Robertsweb posted July 6, 2009

Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn’t always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world’s first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.

When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters,” she would later reveal.

According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright prevarications. The report, “Fifty Domestic Violence Myths,” is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, “domestic violence is all about power and control”? That’s code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men’s insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.

And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!

I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that’s what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”

Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the “VAWA Mafia” find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.

Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the “He had it coming” line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.

Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it “domestic violence.”

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications. So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there’s not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That’s the biggest whopper of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report. As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, “You’re entitled to your own opinions; you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention.

Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.